clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The Jerry Sandusky Case Gets Weirder, Busier

jessedot, you need a commercial.

Okay, let's see if we can get the last 24 hours of Sandusky legal chaos straight. I'd provide legal commentary here, but (a) no thanks, and (b) this is all getting so strange and murky.

First, there was the admission by prosecutors that the infamous Victim #2 shower incident actually occurred 13 months earlier than Mike McQueary testified:

Prosecutors in the Jerry Sandusky case are now saying the infamous incident when Mike McQueary walked in on Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy — the one that ultimately led to Joe Paterno’s firing and criminal charges against two university administrators — happened in 2001, not 2002.

That revelation, sure to please the defense in its quest to discredit McQueary at trial, was written in a motion filed Monday in Centre County Court.

The date change also has the defense attorneys for Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz saying that means the statute of limitations expired and their case should be dismissed.


[Sandusky attorney Joe Amendola] told the Centre Daily Times in January that Sandusky was insistent the shower incident McQueary walked in on was in 2001. He said Sandusky remembered it being close in time to his interviewing for the head coaching job at the University of Virginia in December 2000.

Amendola said the incident wasn’t sexual in nature — rather the boy was "surfing" around in the showers while the showers were running after a workout.

"Jerry is adamant that the time frame involved was really 2001, and probably, probably in February of 2001," Amendola said Jan. 5.

Read more here:

Read more here:

Then, news that an electronic filing mishap accidentally led to the disclosure of some Sandusky accusers:

The judge overseeing the Jerry Sandusky case sealed today part of a document the prosecution mistakenly filed on Monday they said references "individuals associated with the investigation of this matter."

But Senior Judge John Cleland refused to seal separate motions filed by three state departments whose attorneys argued the documents could compromise the identifies of the alleged victims in the case.

The document that was sealed was part of the prosecution's response to a discovery request from the defense. The prosecution outlined a number of items that were turned over to the defense.

Meanwhile, the Sandusky legal team continues to seek as much information as possible about his accusers. Needless to say, the spot's getting hot. Here's what the prosecution filing included:

It shows that computer hard drives, Second Mile camp lists, travel documents and photos were taken from Sandusky’s home. It shows that police recorded several phone conversations between Sandusky and some of the alleged victims.

It shows that a "contract" between Victim Four and Sandusky was obtained. It lists the schools that certain accusers attended.

It shows that less than two weeks before Sandusky was charged, prosecutors met with Joe Paterno for a follow-up to his January 2011 grand jury testimony. The interview was six pages. A family spokesperson said it was a very simple review of his grand jury testimony.

Phone numbers, adoption records, travel documents, videos from local television stations, videos of the coach’s locker room in the Penn State Lasch Building — where several accusers say they were assaulted by Sandusky — emails, and documents regarding Sandusky’s retirement from Penn State were also collected by investigators, the court records show.

Finally, because Tuesday wasn't strange enough, some late afternoon news that Mike McQueary had filed a writ of summons (essentially, a placeholder for a future lawsuit), indicating a whistleblower suit against Penn State (PDF link):

The attorney for McQueary filed a writ of summons for a civil case in county court today. That gives Penn State notice he's suing them.

The four-page document doesn't outline the details of the suit but does call it a whistleblower case where he's seeking damages outside normal arbitration limits.

He's represented by Harrisburg-based attorney Elliot Strokoff, who could not immediately be reached for comment this afternoon. McQueary’s father, John McQueary, declined to comment when reached by phone this afternoon.

Wednesday appears to also be fun, as a hearing on multiple motions is set to take place in Bellefonte. Oh, and in case you haven't had enough, here's a Tuesday chat transcript with the Patriot-News' Sara Ganim.